And it's for that reason that I always discuss package during the initial phone call.

But you'd be surprised at the number of prospective employees that say "it depends". They may be prepared to waste their time, but I'm supposed to waste a couple of man days on their whim?

I even try to explain that it's just a mutual efficiency thing...

But it's like they think I'm just trick them... How does that benefit me? They start, they are unproductive while they learn stuff, then they get a better offer? I want to find people that want to work for me, not just those looking for a job...

I don't know about other hiring managers but I have a budget, I can't afford to build my team with only the most experienced, I need a balanced team with a mix of skills and seniority levels... Money is not free, salaries make up ~90% of my costs so there isn't a lot of room for making savings elsewhere...

i think it works like this... Engineer wants to work for us ( interesting product ) and the package we offer is smaller than they could get at a large company, but the work is more interesting and there is significant upside.... Partner of engineer prefers package size over interesting work because they don't have to do the work... We've even started having the CEO talk to the partner in some cases.

We use standalone Zephyr in conjunction with JIRA, Confluence (both hosted OnDemand) and Stash.

What I can't work out is the justification for their pricing.

I pay Atlasssian about $10 per user per month.

Zephyr wants $80 per user per month, others mentioned are $25 per user per month.

Is test management really worth 5-10times as much as I pay for bug and content management ? Or 1000 times as much as I pay for source code and code review ? (Stash is $10 for a year for 10 users)

No.

So we continue to use the Community Edition of Zephyr... I really like Atlasssian's pricing model and they will continue to be my vendor of choice until someone else can match their price/performance combination*

I try not to be an asshole, but I don't see why I should give someone a job who can't be bothered to look after their career.

If I have someone who's motivated to learn new things vs someone who should be able to predict the end was coming, why would I pick the person who's spent the last 3 years being complacent not improving himself? The fact that you are self taught but then couldn't be bothered to do it anymore is a double kicker.

We're so far beyond jobs for life that its upto the individual to look after themselves. If you don't do that who do you blame ?

Kids let this be a lesson to you - if you want to be able to retire you've got to keep an eye on the ball. Your 30s and 40s are when you need to be working to maximize your income (savings).

Your best option now ? Marry a rich person, start at the OpenUniversity.

Someone dies. A spouse, father and son, and everyone's reaction seems to be along the lines of "good riddance". Two children are going to grow up without a father and your best attempt at humanity is "ohh another 1%-er died - so what"

Is this news - no, but it is social interest. Its a reminder to live whatever life you have to the best you can, because you never know when you'll die.

So get out of your parent's basement and do something today that makes people proud to know you.

When we grew up (rural England in the early 70s) we had what would now be called a highly nutrious diet - we grew all our own "organic" vegetables (we got cow shit for free, pesticides cost money) and had chickens (fresh eggs daily). Ended up only buying meat and milk...

So did my cousins next door.

They were certainly richer than us - it seemed a lot, but it probably wasn't...

Only my sister and I went to university (the only people to have done in any generation), they took low level white collar jobs (bank teller/hairdresser)

Nature certainly has a hand in it, but I think its more likely nurture that has the bigger hand.

For taking one for the team. He single handedly managed to do what India, Argentina, Mexico, the British Labour party couldn't.

And all he had to do was be incompetent at his job - his job, quite simply is to get the best from the show.

Congratulations Oison.

Or should it be Judas ?

Seriously, I'm torn - I love the show, but obviously the BBC had to fire him. I'm hoping that the boys take their antics to a new channel where they have more freedom to give the viewers the show they want - not what the BBC allows them to do in its pitifully correct public broadcaster role. I don't think that would be ITV or even Sky.

I'd really like to see them move to Netflix - they have the money and "freedom" to do what they want with less political climate since its not a broadcaster in the traditional sense (public service requirements).

It might also be an interesting avenue for the the intellectual challenge of "can we do this"... Its never too late to do a start-up...

Since its not upgradable - get the most CPU/memory/disk you can afford.

I have the 15inch - but only because I wanted quad core (I expected to run VMs). In the end I don't run VMs - so the 13" would have been better for me with hindsight.

If I want to work on Linux (all my code runs on Linux) I just ssh into the build machine, MacVim runs local over SMB to the Linux host. Works well for me. I've ported the Linux code to Mac as an exercise - but still use the Linux version everyday.

Check the talking heads physicists on TV - you'll often see a Mac and I bet its not running Linux.

Anything that gets between you and your end-game (physics) is adding an inefficiency. If you're end-game is FOSS, then install Linux, if its leaning physics do you really want to waste time on in-efficienies - just run OS X.

Why don't we pick on the top 2% - not just the top 1%, that's fair, they almost as rich...

Hang on, we can get the top 10%, no - the top 49%.

That's it - those rich 49% bastards.... They're all morally bankrupt...make them pay...

Here's my rule - if you don't pay the tax/fine you don't get to vote on it.

How is it fair to vote on a tax that you don't have to pay ?

Everyone thinks that of course it will be different for them (everyone is of course above average morally) - bullshit it isn't. Just try writing a (extra) cheque to CA for $40k and see how you feel about it...its your hard-earned money that you have to hand over to the state because the majority thought it would be great to have a tax they don't have to pay... Obviously the issue isn't important enough that everyone should contribute towards it...